The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. No fact-misunderstanding police officers may obstruct the performance of their official duties by assaulting them.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 당시 피고인으로부터 폭행을 당한 경찰관 G이 원심 법정에서 ‘ 피고인이 손으로 쳐서 단 말기가 떨어졌고, 그 후에 모자를 벗어서 자신한테 던졌다’ 는 내용으로 진술하고 있고, 이를 목격한 동료 경찰관 H 역시 ‘ 단말 기가 땅에 떨어지는 것은 보지 못하였지만 빡 소리가 난 후 단말기가 바닥에 툭 떨어지는 소리를 들었다고

In full view of the facts that the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the above witness's statement in each court of original instance was clearly erroneous or that maintaining the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the above witness's statement seems to be considerably unfair, the appellate court should respect the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of the witness's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.) and the defendant also stated that he would go against himself, such as he was exempted from clothes and extension on the ground of her mother and child, etc., the defendant may fully recognize the fact that he assaulted the police officer G to interfere with the performance of official duties, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The degree of assault committed by the Defendant to determine the illegal argument of sentencing is relatively minor.

There is no record that the defendant was punished for the same crime.

However, it is not against the defendant's rejection of the crime until the trial.

(b)the State;